Obama to Give Unions a Veto Over Where a Company Can Set Up Shop

If you own a company and want to relocate to another part of the country, Obama wants you to know that you have no right to decide where that location will be. Obama wants you to know that only a labor union can make that decision. You have no say in the matter.

At least, that is what Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) wants to do with a new rule that would give unions veto power over where a company re-opens its doors.

The goal, of course, is to destroy the economies of right-to-work states and force them to allow destructive unions to hold sway over their business sector or risk economic ruin.

Currently it is perfectly legal (not to mention moral, I might add) for a company to decided it wants to close its facilities in one part of the country and move some or all of it’s business to another part of the country. We call it the free enterprise system.

Certainly it is a moral right that the owner(s) of a company should have the right to make such a decision, wouldn’t you think?

But Obama wants to end that common American right of business owners to decide where they want to do business.

This change in the moral right of businesses is being proposed by Obama’s extremist general counsel to the NLRB, Richard Griffin, who wants to force all businesses that already have a unionized work force to go hat in hand to its unions and ask *pretty please* may the company move, say, from Michigan to North Carolina.

The effect of this new rules change would force businesses to stay in failing situations and in economic conditions that are strangling them. It will prevent a company from being able to make the dynamic changes needed to try to stay in business. This rule will certainly further destroy our manufacturing sector.

Now, as Peter Schaumber noted this week, the U.S. Supreme Court has already spoken to the right of a business to make its own decisions. The SCOTUS said that the NLRB must respect “management’s [need] to be free from the constraints of the bargaining process to the extent essential for the running of a profitable business.”

And all this to protect Obama’s beloved, anti-democratic, anti-business, anti-capitalist, un-American union pals.

It is also important to remember just who this Richard Griffin is. Griffin, Obama’s appointee to the NLRB, is a long time Big Labor operative as a high ranking member of the International Union of Operating Engineers–a union that runs thick with ties to organized crime.

No surprise. This is what the NLRB tried with their Boeing ruling, where they tried to keep Boeing from opening their SC plant claiming that it was detrimental to the Seattle union.

However, the NLRB does not have a quorum on its board and so all its rulings are therefore illegal and the courts have been holding so. So any ruling they make is just political BS meant for their far left fan club.

JWH

I’m usually more pro-labor than this …. but if a union is worried that an employer will relocate a factory, why doesn’t it negotiate a relevant clause in the contract?

jim_m

Because this is not just moving a factory, it is also where you can build a new/additional factory. This is about making companies beholden to the unions for where they can do business.

No company would ever agree to this in a CBA. Regardless of how good your union relations are today you don’t want to put yourself at a future risk. Exec management would get fired on the spot for agreeing to such a ridiculous demand.

Griffin is indeed a radical, and one of the worst possible people for the job – which Obama tends to view as a qualification.

But the proposed change doesn’t give unions a “veto” over relocations. The change would require bargaining over relocations, whereas the current law permits companies to move without bargaining if the move isn’t in retaliation for labor actions.

The practical effect would be delays and increased costs, as unions would never have an incentive to reach an agreement that would curtail their power. Over time, fewer moves would probably be proposed because of these higher costs, but the unions could not ultimately prevent the move.

jim_m

So you say that it is not a veto then explain that in practice it amounts to a veto. Nice parsing.

It is never going to happen. The courts have made that clear. This is just more leftist pipedreams.

914

Where on Earth did this ‘president’ find all of these powers?

xsnake

What’s really sad…..America was beaten by the filthy hippie trash commies from the 60s. And when you are in the WH and the press worships you……you can do anything. Doesn’t help, when the “opposition party” has no balls.

Constitution First

Sieg-hiel! What part of Hoax and Chains Amerika doesn’t feel like 1930’s Germany?

For the last six years, the amount of dollar-creation has been unprecedented in both U.S. and world history. In less than six years, the Federal Reserve has “expanded its balance sheet” by over three trillion dollars. At the same time, the U.S. Federal government has been running monumental budget deficits . . . which just so happen to total what the Federal Reserve has been printing. In the United States, we call this “Quantitative Easing”—but in every other country on earth, in every other time in history, this has been called “debt monetization.” Otherwise known as “money printing.” And in every other time in history, in every other country on earth, the result has always been the same: Hyperinflation—always. A currency collapse—which is going to happen in America.

But Bruce is a super human intelligence, who knows that despite everything that is known that for once doing the same thing that everyone else has done will deliver a different result. What an ass.

Brucehenry

Yes there are many sky-is-falling-or-will-be-very-very-soon loonybirds just like yourself out there, Jim. Some of them write books or have their own blogs, like this eminently qualified guy who penned this tome.